CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 novembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   857 19.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Bulgaria and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, available only in English.   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Tonchev v. Bulgaria (application no. 18527/02) The applicant, Krastiu Tonchev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Vratsa (Bulgaria). The case concerned in particular Mr Tonchev’s allegation that criminal proceedings brought against a neighbour who had assaulted his five-year old son had exceeded a reasonable time and had failed to provide effective redress. He relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. No violation of Article 3 No violation of Article 8 Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Just satisfaction: 200 euros (EUR) (costs and expenses). Claim for pecuniary damage dismissed. No claim for non-pecuniary damage.   Glinov v. Ukraine (no. 13693/05) The applicant, Nikolay Glinov, is a Kazakh national who was born in 1978 and is currently serving a 14-year prison sentence in Rivne Penitentiary (Ukraine) for robbery with violence. Relying in particular on 8 (right to respect for correspondence), he complained of the authorities’ monitoring of his correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights. Violation of Article 8 (correspondence with the Court) Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction (non-pecuniary damage).   Telegina v. Ukraine (no. 2035/03) The applicant, Taisiya Telegina, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Zaporizhzhya (Ukraine). Head of Zaporizhzhya Airport Customs Office, she complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against her for, among other things, abuse of office and taking a bribe. She relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction (non-pecuniary damage).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Korabelnikov v. Ukraine (no. 29860/05) Lazarenko v. Ukraine (no. 26855/05) Savinskiy and Shevchenko v. Ukraine (nos. 34168/05 and 45750/07)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Skaloukhov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 8107/06, 8473/06, 8475/06, 15941/06 and 32116/06)   These cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that the Ukrainian authorities failed to enforce final judgments in their favour. They mainly relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and/or Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Lazaruk v. Ukraine (no. 6261/04) Tverdokhlebov v. Ukraine (no. 27341/05)     ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.